Control of insects on both large and small animals long has been a problem. Many insects cause discomfort to the animals and carry diseases or otherwise impair the health of the animals attacked or molested by such insects. Typical problems exist with flies which impair the health of horses and cattle and with fleas and ticks which irritate and impair the health of dogs and cats. The most common solution, both for large and small animals, generally is to apply some type of insecticide to the animal either by spraying, dipping, bathing, or the like, in an effort to kill or repel the troublesome insects. At best, this procedure is only a temporary solution. The particular insects which are on the animal or come into contact with it shortly after the insecticide spraying or dipping operation takes place are killed. The insecticide, however, soon wears off or its effectiveness diminishes; and within a relatively short time, additional infestation and molestation of the animal by new insects takes place.
For cattle, a more or less continuous insect control has been attempted in the form of "rubbing" stanchions. These disperse measured amounts of insecticides onto the coat of the animal whenever it rubs up against the stanchion or passes underneath a frame, or the like, typically located near a place where the animal regularly feeds or drinks so to cause periodic contact of the animal with the insecticide dispensing apparatus. While this approach is somewhat effective for large animals, particularly cattle, it is an approach which has not been used for house pets.
A disadvantage to insecticide dispensing stations, for large animals, is that they are fixed in location and if the animal wanders away from such stations, the control which is obtained at the station no longer is obtained. In an effort to control the infestation of horses and cattle from flies, it has been proposed in the past to attach a sheet of sticky fly paper to the back of a horse or cow. Such an approach dates back many years and is disclosed in the U.S. Pat. Nos. to Farnam, 532,454, issued Jan. 15, 1895, and 544,295, issued Aug. 13, 1895. Similar approaches also have been taken in the devices disclosed in the U.S. Pat. Nos. to Foley, 1,560,683, issued Nov. 10, 1925, and Drummond, 1,972,762, issued Sept. 4, 1934.
In place of attaching a sheet of sticky fly paper to the back or a horse or cow, the McConnell U.S. Pat. No. 790,651, issued May 23, 1905, discloses a sticky paper fly trap device which is hung on the trace of the harness of a horse.
A more ambitious attempt to control flies on cattle is disclosed in the patent to Pierce, U.S. Pat. No. 2,688,311, issued Sept. 7, 1954. This patent discloses a relatively large blanket which is glued to the hairs on the back of a cow to (1) prevent flies from attaching themselves to the animal's back and (2) for trapping grubs after they emerge from the skin to prevent the fall of the grubs to the ground for hibernation.
The foregoing attempts at controlling flies on large animals are wholely unacceptable for small animals such as dogs or cats. The sticky fly paper of most of these patents is exposed and since small animals often are in close contact with humans and household environments, the rubbing of the animal against furniture or persons naturally would result in the transfer of the sticky fly paper glue to whatever objects or persons were being touched by the animal. Consequently, approaches of the types described in the above patents are not feasible for small animals. In addition, the insect control problem for small animals is not primarily a problem with flies, but instead is a problem with infestation of fleas and ticks. The nature of fleas and ticks is quite different from flies and they travel about on the animal's skin through, over, and underneath the hair; so that they are both difficult to locate and control.
A relatively popular approach to controlling fleas on dogs and cats more recently has been in the form of chemical poison "flea collars" which continuously dispense a minute amount of flea killing poison powder or vapor from the collar while the dog or cat is wearing it. Three patents directed to this type of solution for controlling fleas are the U.S. Pat. Nos. to McAndless, 4,047,505, issued Sept. 13, 1977, Colliard, 4,091,766, issued May 30, 1978; and Buzzell, et al, 4,184,452, issued Jan. 22, 1980. Such "flea" collars for dogs and cats generally contain organophosphate insecticides.
Two major problems exist in conjunction with insecticide dispensing collars for flea control. First, the insecticide in the flea collar has been found to depress the cholinesterase enzyme in the nervous systems of dogs and cats. Secondly, whenever persons come in contact with a dog or the cat wearing such a collar, they also come in contact with the poison dispensed from the collar. This is particularly a problem with respect to children who often put their hands in their mouths or rub their eyes after touching a pet. With an increasing awareness of the dangers of various types of chemical poisons, many people are reluctant to use such a poison collar control device to eliminate fleas from their pets.
It is desirable to provide a simple, non-poisonous approach to the control of fleas on dogs and cats which is not subject to any of the foregoing disadvantages present in the various prior art patents and devices mentioned above. It is particularly desirable to provide a system for the diagnosis of the presence of fleas or ticks and for the elimination or control of such insect pests without using poisons and without attaching unsightly paraphernalia to the dog or cat on which the device is used.